Delhi Automobiles vs Smt. Trishla Jain and others

G.C. Mittal, J.—M/s Delhi Automobiles (Private) Limited with Head office at New Delhi and branches at several places, is a distributor of the Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay, who manufacture chassies of Matador Mini Buses besides Manufacturing other automobiles Sanmati Matri Sewa Sangh (Regd) Jagraon placed an order with Delhi Automobiles (Private) Ltd Ludhiana Branch for the chassis of Matador Mini Bus. The delivery of the chassis was made on payment of full price and thereafter the purchaser sent the chassis to the New Model Industries (Private) Ltd., Jullundur for building the body thereon. The purchaser of the chassis needed the Mini Bus for carrying the students who were studying in their institution. After the bus was received from the body-builders, the same was put to use when the purchaser came to know that there was some serious manufacturing defect in the engine and, therefore, it filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,08,346/- which included the refund of the price of the chassis; the payment of the body built on the same and interest thereon besides Rs. 10,000/- as nominal damages. In the suit the following four defendants were impleaded:--

(1) Delhi Automobiles (Private) Limited, Ludhiana.

(2) The Premier Automobiles Limited, Bombay

(3) The New Model Industries (Private) Ltd, Jullundur

(4) The State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon.

The entire payment made by the Plaintiff through the State Bank of Patiala by cheques/drafts and that is how the State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon was made defendant, besides the distributor from whom the chassis was purchased, the Bombay company who manufactured the chassis and the Body Builders, Jullundur. The Delhi Automobiles raised two preliminary objections One was that it was Delhi Court which had the jurisdiction and in any event it was the Ludhiana Court which had the jurisdiction and the second preliminary objection was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. On the two matters, preliminary issues were framed and opportunity was granted to both the sides to lead evidence. After the evidence was led, the trial Court found no merit in the preliminary objections and decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs by order dated 17-5-1979. Civil Revision No. 1595 of 1979 has been filed by the Delhi Automobiles (Private) Ltd., Ludhiana against the aforesaid order.

The Premier Automobiles Ltd filed a separate application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for stricking off their name from the array of defendants on the plea that on a bare reading of the plaint, it is clear that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 & therefore contended that plaintiffs had no cause of action against them and, therefore, their name should be struck off. That application was opposed by the plaintiffs who pleaded that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, they were supplied with a warranty card duly executed by the Premier Automobiles Ltd. and, therefore, if any manufacturing defect is found in the vehicle, it was the Premier Automobiles Ltd. who was equally liable along with its distributor and, therefore, was a necessary party and its name could not be struck off The trial Court by a well reasoned order dated 25-9-1979 dismissed the application after recording a finding that there was a clear warranty given by the Premier Automobiles Ltd, to the plaintiffs through its distributor and as such they were equally liable along with their distributor Civil Revision No. 2619 of 1979 was filed by the Premier Automobiles Ltd. against the aforesaid order.

Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same suit, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

On the point of jurisdiction of Jagraon Court, two matters arise for consideration:

(1) Whether any part of cause of action arose at Jagraon? and

(2) Whether it was agreed between the parties that all disputes shall be settled at Delhi?

On the first matter, the trial Court came to the conclusion on appraisal of evidence that part of cause of action arose at Jagraon which is amply proved from the letter dated 6-7-1977 Exhibit P. 1, which was written by Delhi Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Ludhiana, to the plaintiff society at Jagraon. The relevant portion of the letter is as follows:--

We are really grateful to you for extending your kind felicitation to our Sales Executive Mr. B.P. Kuller during his visit to your institution today.

We have received your cheque for Rs. 5,000/- as an advance against your order for the Matador Mini Bus which have very kindly placed on us. We are enclosing herewith bur official receipt bearing No. 718 dated 6-6-77 for Rs. 5,000/-.

From the above it is clear that the Sales Executive of the Ludhiana distributor went to Jagraon when order for Matador Mini Bus chassis was placed and a cheque for Rs. 5,000/- was delivered to him as advance. On 20-7-1977, a bank draft was got prepared by the plaintiff institution through Suit. Trishala Jain in the presence of a Sikh gentleman from the State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon Branch as is deposed to by Gurmej Singh, Manager of that bank who appeared P.W. 1. This witness further testified that he delivered the draft to Smt. Trishala Jain who further delivered the draft to that Sikh gentleman who issued a bill and receipt immediately thereafter in his presence. The bill and the receipt were given by Smt. Trishala Jain to the bank authorities and these were kept in the bank This witness pointed out towards Shri K.S. Oberoi, present in Court, to be that Sikh gentleman, who is the Manager of Delhi Automobiles (Private) Ltd Therefore, it is clear that part of cause of action arose at Jagraon and the finding recorded by the Court below upheld.

Adverting to the second aspect, namely, whether the parties agreed that all claims will be settled at Delhi, this matter has been dealt with by the trial Court in paras 10 and 11. The basis of the argument is that on the invoice issued to the plaintiff, there was a footnote to the following effect :--

Any claim arising out of this invoice is to be adjusted in Delhi.

It has been found by the Court below that the plaintiffs did not accept the foot-note because there is DO signatures on the invoice of any person on behalf of the plaintiff-institution. A photostat copy of the invoice produced by the plaintiffs on the record is Exhibit P. 2, which does not show that anybody signed the same on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Delhi Automobile (Private) Ltd. did not produce any further evidence before the trial Court in support of their plea that the Delhi Court alone had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter regarding any dispute between the parties. Even the carbon copy of the invoice was not produced before the Court below in support of the plea. But at the time of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner wanted to show a book containing carbon copies of the invoices which probably contained the carbon copy of the invoice issued to the plaintiff. This is not the procedure for producing the documents in Court. Accordingly, I declined to look at the book which was in possession of the counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter. I uphold the finding of the Court below that the Delhi Automobiles (Private) Ltd. has failed to show that the Delhi Court alone had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties.

The other preliminary objection was regarding the multifariousness of the suit. This matter was not seriously challenged either before the Court below or before me. Moreover, the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 13 of its order calls for no interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly the order of the trial Court dated 17th May, 1979 is hereby upheld.

Adverting to the other civil revision filed by the Premier Automobiles Ltd., I find that the order of the trial Court dated 25th September, 1979 is well merited and calls for no interference. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. is the manufacturing concern of the Matador Mini Buses and the items manufactured by them are sold by their distributors including Delhi Automobiles (Private) Ltd. Ludhiana. For the sale of their automobiles, they issue warranty cards through their distributors to be further handed over to the buyer and in case there is any manufacturing defect then within the period of warranty the buyer can lay claims against the manufacturers as also the distributor. The counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the issue of warranty cards and accordingly, cannot be said that the Premir Automobiles Ltd. cannot be held to be liable in case it is found that there is a manufacturing defect in the Matador Mini Bus supplied to the plaintiff.

For the reasons recorded above, both the revision petitions are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 300/- in each case.